Boehme v. Carr
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought on the ,2nd of December 1846, by the appellant, the holder of a promissory note, against the appellee, the endorser. The defendant was returned non est, and the writ renewed from term to term, until January term, 1850, when, upon return of cepi, the defendant appeared and plead non assumpsit, and issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought on the ,2nd of December 1846, by the appellant, the holder of a promissory note, against the appellee, the endorser. The defendant was returned non est, and the writ renewed from term to term, until January term, 1850, when, upon return of cepi, the defendant appeared and plead non assumpsit, and issue was joined. The note on which suit was brought is set out in the opinion of this court, and bears date the 2nd of October 1843. 1st Exception. At May term 1850, the defendant moved to amend his pleadings in order to…
1Opinion of the CourtMason, J.
The note which forms the basis of the present action is' in these words, viz:
“Sixty days after date I promise to pay D. S. Carr, or order, three hundred dollars for value received. /" 1. S'
Jno. Spear Smith.”
This noté' was endorsed by Mr. Carr, the appellee in the present suit, for the accommodation of the drawer, who passed it over to the appellant. Upon maturity it was protested for non-payment. The protest, after stating demand, refusal to pay, &c., adds, “on the same day I addressed a written notice to the endorser of the said promissory note, informing him it had not been paid by the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Graham v. SangstonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1851
- Tolson v. TolsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1849
3Cited by1 opinion
- Armstrong v. ThrustonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1857